KOA

KOA is the Sinko, Ebara, and Haier industrial chillers installation, repair, and maintenance vendor. With over 4000 customers and 55 service technicians, KOA delivers the routine maintenance, installation, repair of the cooling towers, pumps, chillers, and HVAC systems for large educational institutions, universities, and hospitals.

KOA Before and After Tetra's Solution

KOA was not using any automation around its field services. Therefore the following are the sample list of deficiencies they were facing. They serve 4500 customers, with about 60 technicians. The following operational issues were impacting their profitability, and their operating cost was noticeable. Tetra's solution addressed the following operational deficiencies and helped the KOA to take their operation to the next level. As a result of the Tetra's solution deployment, KOA could decrease their operating cost by improving productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness. The platform also helped the KOA to enhance the customer experience for their clients.

KOA Challenges

  • Technicians needed to go to the office to get their daily assignment in the morning
  • Technicians needed to go to the office to report their daily work status
  • Human error and paper and administration cost
  • Paper-based operation
  • The technician got their work on paper
  • Manual dispatch of the work
  • Heavy and time-consuming administration work
  • Unable to track the travel time from office to the jobs and from one job to another job
  • No integration with CRM
  • Unable to track the work order status
  • Unable to track the technician status
  • Management was unable to have access to real-time operational data
  • Operational data was not being captured in real-time
  • KOA couldn't provide the real-time update on the job status to the customer leading to the poor customer experience
  • Less work completed in 8 hours shifts
  • Poor technician performance
  • No map functionality to see where are the technicians and where are the active, closed, completed, in-progress orders
  • No access to ETA, ETC
  • Mistakes in assigning wrong orders to the wrong technicians, leading to the second and sometimes third assignment
  • Unable to submit the work completion information electronically
  • Unable to see the actual and planned job duration
  • Unable to see how long a technician was available
  • No alert system to notify the management for missed or in jeopardized orders
  • Inaccurate job completion information due to the lack of automation

More Detail

Technicians:

Technicians travelled every morning to the office and used to start their day at 8:30 AM. Because of the manual process, it took at least one hour before the technicians receive their daily assignments and hit the road. When en-route, management didn't have any automation on travel time, en-route time, on-site time and completed time. Inefficient travel time affected the number of jobs that a technician could perform every day. Technicians were not logging what time they started on the job and what time they finished, and hence, information on the completed forms was not accurate. Technicians couldn't update their work status before they return to the office and management didn't have any access to the status of the jobs in real-time.

Customers:

Lack of automation around initiating the service requests (maintenance, repair, installation) by the customers, created customer dissatisfaction. The telephone line was the main and only channel available to the customers to reach out to the service desk and wait time on the call was disturbing. Customers didn't have real-time access to the status of their work orders, and there was no easy to track the technician's ETA; hence, customers left in the dark and hoping that technicians will arrive at any time. It was impossible to submit or attach any pictures or documents of the defect or problem in hand.

Administration:

The processes were all manual and on pieces of paper. The assignment of the jobs was manual, and every morning, technicians used to get their work orders on the paper. The amount of the papers used to record the job detail and job reports was significant and accessing the operational data was challenging. Information sometimes was misplaced, and it wasn't very easy to pull out the reports on the operational data for analysis and decision making. Data was not reliable and was not accurate for precise course of actions by management.

Management:
Due to the manual process, operational data was not centralized. The management didn't have on-demand insight into the operational data, and the decision making was difficult for any process improvement. Gaining operational efficiency was challenging due to the lack of access to accurate operational data. It was impossible to know the status of work orders and what the technicians are busy with at any given time. Lack of access to the real-time and on-demand operational report led to the uninformed decision-making process resulting in poor service performance.

CRM integration:
KOA was not using any automation around their order and fleet management. Therefore, it was not possible to use the existing CRM solutions in the market.